IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR CIVIL PETITION NO.362 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SMT.MALAMBIKA @ HEMALATHA, W/O RAVI, D/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT #210/A, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KASHINAGARA, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR K.O, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI.RAVI, S/O.SHIVAMALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O.CHIKKINDUWADI VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 571440. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO TRANSFER THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.C.NO.39/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOLLEGALA TO FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, heard arguments on merits.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for transfer of M.C. No.39/2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala to Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent. They were married on 02.06.2016. Thereafter there was no compatibility between the couple. On account of matrimonial dispute they are residing separately. The respondent has filed a petition before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Kollegala under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking judicial separation which is numbered as M.C. No.39/2017.
4. The petitioner is residing at Bengaluru. If she goes to Kollegala for attending the Court proceedings there is a threat by her husband and his relatives. Thus it is difficult to attend the Court proceedings at Kollegala. The petitioner being a housewife do not have source of income and she is dependant on her parents. In the event of the transfer of M.C. petition to Family Court at Bengaluru, the petitioner can conveniently attend the Court proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru in her parents house. Due to the financial difficulty she is unable to attend the court proceedings at Kollegala. As such, she is put to inconvenience and hardship.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations made are false and baseless. The respondent husband has never caused threat. The allegations are made with vindictive motive, only to seek the relief claimed in the petition. There are no valid grounds for transfer of M.C. petition as claimed by the petitioner.
7. In view of the rival contentions, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner has made out grounds to allow the petition?
8. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the general power of transfer and withdrawal of the suits, appeal or other proceedings. The relevant provision is sub-section (1)(b) of Section 24, which is as under:
“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.-
(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage,— (a) ….
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and (i) try to dispose of the same: or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn.
9. In the case of M.V. Rekha v/s. Sathya Alias Suraj reported in 2011 (2) Kar.L.J. 643, it is held as under:
“15. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereon and the circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”
10. As could be seen from the M.C. petition filed under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the address of the respondent is shown as Javanahalli village, Malavalli taluk, Mandya district, but in the Civil Petition it is stated that the petitioner is residing in her parents house at Bengaluru. The said fact has not been specifically denied or disputed by the counsel for the respondent.
11. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is housewife and she do not have any independent income. The petition is pending before the Senior Civil Judge at Kollegala which is far away from Bengaluru. As such, the petitioner is finding it difficult to attend the Court proceedings due to financial difficulty and other complications. Hence there are valid grounds for granting the relief claimed.
12. In the circumstances, the civil petition is allowed. M.C. No.39/2017 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala is transferred to Family Court, Bengaluru.
13. The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Senior Civil Judge, Kollegala and the Family Court, Bengaluru, for the purpose of transmission of records.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl